City of Fairborn v. Munkus, 70-697
| Decision Date | 29 December 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 70-697,70-697 |
| Citation | 277 N.E.2d 227,28 Ohio St.2d 207 |
| Parties | , 57 O.O.2d 436 CITY OF FAIRBORN, Appellee, v. MUNKUS, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
A municipal police officer may make an arrest for a violation of a municipal ordinance, upon a properly issued warrant, anywhere within the jurisdictional limits of the issuing court.
On October 9, 1969, affidavits were filed in the Fairborn Municipal Court of Fairborn, Ohio, charging defendant with violation of city of Fairborn Ordinance Nos. 517.01 (assault and battery), and 565.02 (petit larceny). The Fairborn Municipal Court has territorial jurisdiction over the city of Fairborn and the surrounding area of Bath Township, Greene County, Ohio. 1 The conduct resulting in the above charges occurred within the municipal limits of the city of Fairborn.
Two warrants were issued by the Fairborn Police Department to police officers of the city of Fairborn. These police officers, none of whom were deputized officers of any political subdivision other than the city of Fairborn, proceeded to the residence of the defendant. Said residence is located in the city of Fairborn.
Not finding the defendant at home, the police officers then proceeded to the Edna Avenue Free Will Baptist Church, which is outside the municipal limits of Fairborn, but within Bath Township, and thus within the territorial jurisdiction of the Fairborn Municipal Court. Upon locating the defendant there, the three police officers proceeded to place him under arrest. The defendant resisted this arrest, and Patrolman Platt filed an affidavit in the Fairborn Municipal Court charging defendant with violation of city of Fairborn Ordinance No. 565.02 (resisting arrest). On October 17, 1969, this affidavit was marked void and Patrolman Platt filed a new affidavit charging the defendant with violation of R.C. § 2917.33 (resisting arrest).
Upon arraignment, defendant declined to plead to the affidavit and by motion and affidavit moved to dismiss the charges, contending that his arrest was illegal and contrary to law and that therefore the trial court did not have jurisdiction of his person. This motion was overruled.
On the day of trial, the defendant moved the court to abate the proceedings and dismiss the action for the reason that his arrest had taken place outside the corporation, limits of the city of Fairborn. This motion, likewise, was overruled. The defendant declined to enter a plea, resulting in the trial court entering pleas of not guilty to all charges. The defendant was tried and convicted in Fairborn Municipal Court of violations of Ordinance No. 517.01 and RC. § 2917.33.
The defendant perfected his appeal to the Court of Appeals, which court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. This cause is now before this court pursuant to the allowance of a motion to certify the record.
Gerald E. Schlafman, Fairborn, for appellee.
Cox & Brandabur, and Jerome G. Menz, Xenia, for appellant.
The issue presented is whether police officers of a municipal corporation have the power to arrest, outside the limits of their municipality, but within the territorial jurisdictional limits of the Municipal Court, on warrants properly issued upon affidavits charging the violation, within a municipality, of a municipal ordinance.
The general common-law rule is that the power of a municipal police officer is limited to the boundaries of his municipality, and that he may not, even with a warrant, make an arrest outside his territory for a misdemeanor. 5 American Jurisprudence 2d 710. This rule, however, has been changed by statute.
R.C. § 2935.02 states:
'If an accused person flees from justice, or is not found in the county where a warrant for his arrest was issued, the officer holding the same may pursue and arrest him in any county in this state, and convey him before the magistrate or court of the county having cognizance of the case. * * *' (Emphasis added). The record in the instant case indicates that the defendant was not found within the municipal limits of Fairborn. The police officers, with the warrants, then proceeded to arrest the defendant outside the municipal limits, but within the jurisdictional limits of the court.
R.C. § 2935.02 refers to the georgraphical limits of a county, whereas the instant case concerns itself with the georgraphical limits of a municipality. The intent of the General Assembly, however, remains clear. No exception is made in R.C. § 2935.02 for any particular type of officer, and it would appear that any officer, with a warrant, be he of a municipal police force, or otherwise, could arrest a person outside the limits of the county, when such person could not be found within the county. If a municipal police officer is clocked with that authority, it follows that he has the authority to make an arrest, with a warrant, within the jurisdictional limits of the municipal court, even where it extends beyond the geographical limits of the municipality.
The word 'officer' is not defined in Chapter 2935. We must, therefore, derive its meaning from its use in all sections of that chapter. It should be noted, however, that R.C. § 2935.01(B) does define 'peace officer' as including '* * * a sheriff, deputy sheriff, marshal, deputy marshal, member of the organized police department of any municipality, a police constable of any township * * *.' (Emphasis added.) We conclude that the word 'officer,' as used in Chapter 2935, includes a municipal police officer unless specifically stated otherwise.
In addition, R.C. § 2935.10, in providing to whom warrants may be issued, states, in part:
'If the offense charged is a misdemeanor or violation of a municipal ordinance, such judge, clerk, or magistrate may:
'(A) Issue a warrant for the arrest of such person, directed to any officer named in Section 2935.03 of the Revised Code but in cases of ordinance violation only to a police officer or marshal or deputy marshal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Brown
...arrest acted outside their official capacity and were therefore treated as private citizens. See, e.g., Fairborn v. Munkus, 28 Ohio St.2d 207, 209, 277 N.E.2d 227 (1971) ; State v. Zdovc, 106 Ohio App. 481, 485–486, 151 N.E.2d 672 (8th Dist.1958) ; State v. Eriksen, 172 Wash.2d 506, 259 P.3......
-
State v. Locke
...v. Fluckiger, 22 Conn.Supp. 311, 171 A.2d 86 (1961); State v. Shienle, 218 Kan. 637, 545 P.2d 1129 (1976); City of Fairborn v. Munkus, 28 Ohio St.2d 207, 277 N.E.2d 227 (1971); Irwin v. State, Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 10 Wash.App. 369, 517 P.2d 619 (1974). We further said in Page that if a ......
-
City of Cincinnati v. Alexander, 77-1044
...of a law of this state or an ordinance of a village, until a warrant can be obtained." This court concluded in Fairborn v. Munkus (1971), 28 Ohio St.2d 207, 277 N.E.2d 227, that a municipal police officer is an "officer," as that term is used in R.C. Chapter 2935. Thus a municipal police of......
-
Van Horn v. State
...Newburn does recognize a statutory extension of arrest authority for prevention and suppression. See likewise City of Fairborn v. Munkus, 28 Ohio St.2d 207, 277 N.E.2d 227 (1971), which, after citing the common law rule, recognizes a statutory extension of expanded jurisdiction. Following o......